If someone is a liar but delivers the trinkets they sell - should they be labelled with red trust?
I wouldn't risk trading with someone who is a known liar.  Please, tell me how someone could be identified proactively as a high risk with your line of thinking. When can one assume a person is a high risk? .. Define "proactive scam-hunting".
Actually, the power of proactive approach is also trying to be severely limited. The more we push the system into a retroactive-only approach, the more the Bitcointalk slogan should be "Free scam for every account! Unlimited accounts. We don't moderate scams, and we provide easy access from Tor. Let the games begin!"  That's the way that "intellectual liberals" rescue the society.  |
|
|
|
Ratings
- Leave positive ratings if you actively think that trading with this person is safer than with a random person.
- Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
- Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.
- Post-flags, ratings have less impact. It's only an orange number. Some amount of "leave ratings first, ask questions later" may be OK. For example, if you thought that YoBit was a serious ongoing scam, the promotion of which was extremely problematic, then it'd be a sane use of the system to immediately leave negative trust for everyone wearing a YoBit signature. (I don't necessarily endorse this viewpoint or this action: various parts of the issue are highly subjective. But while I wouldn't blame people for excluding someone who did this, I wouldn't call it an abuse of the system.)
- Exercise a lot of forgiveness. People shouldn't be "permanently branded" as a result of small mistakes from which we've all moved past. Oftentimes, people get a rating due to unknowingly acting a bit outside of the community's consensus on appropriate behavior, and such ratings may indeed be appropriate. But if they correct the problem and don't seem likely to do it again, remove the rating or replace it with a neutral. Even if someone refuses to agree with the community consensus (ie. they refuse to back down philosophically), if they're willing to refrain from the behavior, their philosophical difference should not be used to justify a rating.
Very good post, and confirms what I was talking about the whole time. A more lenient system has an equal or wider amount of available reasons for ratings. The readers of ratings should not project their their conclusion on why it was given before even actually reading it. For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.
Which means that promoting scams is now an action that has a get-out-free card for negatives? |
|
|
|
do your worst, you and your ass licking zombie newt buddy are finished here, real life police investigations into your parasitic terroristic lives should follow.
By who, the corrupt Turkish police?  |
|
|
|
Dishonorable worm and self admitted "lauda ass eating newt" ~nullius lists 5 reasons why Turkish users should be blacklisted on a pm to suchmoon: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221450.msg53741173#msg53741173The most dishonorable worm to have ever crawled this forum is having private discussions with the self appointed "nanny of the forum" as to why it would be in the best interests of everyone to conduct a purge on the Turkish section... Maybe after this physical evidence Darkstar_ & ChipMixer can finally understand how easily they were played all these years and rethink some of their decisions. The real reason why lauda and her masochistic ass licker are so eager to defame every influential Turkish member: it was incidentally a now banned Turkish member (olcaytu), who ran a successful bounty site (off forum) who provided mathematical evidence that Lauda was breaking many laws in her endless perverse quests of vengeance against the local section; she now understands that her very survival on this forum rests on the complete elimination of all veteran Turkish members... ~Lauda is the worst thing that ever happened on this forum, a pure evil, dysfunctional, nasty wretch who would be quickly apprehended and locked up in either a jail or a mental institution in real life, has managed to terrorize and even build a fake "cult following" on the once leading crypto forum... For this forum to survive and flourish, petty criminal ~Lauda and her ass licker ~nullius should be blacklisted from the entire DT system, not just DT1, which makes it meaningless, because in that case some dt1 mafia members simply add these useful trolls to their trust list from time to time to insure their fascistic control over all Trust decisions... Quoted for reference. Keep at it, log in more accounts. |
|
|
|
Suchmoon has been through most of that drama and has found refuge into simplifying the system. "Trust is only for trade, easy-peasy".
This is untrue. Yes, I oppress criminals and dishonest people. Can't scam anymore and cheat the systems with your account? Boo fucking hoo. It's a system of trust not a system of trade. My rating on TECSHARE Is not going anywhere and will be rewritten, expanded as more deceptive and untrustworthy behavior occurs. I may need to open a whole thread because there are too many references as is, let alone in the coming future.
Closing remarks:They are just that, examples, which serve as evidence for the claim that the introduction of the flag system/change in the trust-system had to have had a weakening effect on the requirements and not the other way around. I have spent time looking for some examples rather than telling you "Hey look at all the years until now" in hope that you see how things really always were.
The only remaining option is to ask an administrative authority, i.e. theymos to provide an elaborative opinion on his own guidelines..
I will be choosing the latter option..
This claim is now also backed up by theymos. Therefore, I hope that people start spreading this to be the truth and not the reverse (that the requirement for negatives is stricter now - because it is not!). Yes, the threshold for negatives was weakened. On the rating form, it says: "Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk." (Pre-flags, it used to say something much stronger.) So if for any reason you think that trading with the person is high-risk, then a negative rating may be warranted. (This does exclude giving negative trust just because you dislike them or their opinions, though, since that has nothing to do with trading.)
I fully agree on this, trolling on itself it's sufficient especially not occasional instances of trolling (labeling occasional and consistent trolls as one would be wrong). Also keep in mind the distinction between "their opinions" and having an opinion about somebody i.e. their trustworthiness based on their actions. Reasons why I or many rational persons wouldn't trade with someone: - Trolling - I wouldn't attempt to trade with a known troll due to non-trade related deceptive behavior.
- Dishonesty/hypocrisy - Who would?
- General deceptive behavior.
- Many, many more..
However, it also confirms that deceptive behavior is in fact more than appropriate for a negative because it relates to a person's trustworthiness - and that's related to trading. Now, some people might take a illogical route and argue that trolling itself is deceptive behavior. Sure, you can look at it like that. I can also say that stating that the Earth is flat is deceptive. However, that would be moving the goalposts just for the sake of destroying the argument (as we're talking about actual deceptive behavior) and a display of behavior you should not be tagging for - re: opinions on subjects (which is different from slander/libel/etc. - see quote again). Some people may seemingly misunderstand my rating on OP, but that's because they already have a conclusion about it before reading it. It has absolutely nothing to do with any of his opinion or his trolling (for which he's long overdue for a ban). That's irrelevant.
Exclusions aren't personal attacks, simply a disagreement of opinions, and sometimes a compromise in an imperfect system.
That is how it should be, but is not how the state of things are unfortunately. Most of the time they are seen as personal attacks. How many times did someone get excluded because they first excluded the other person?
That would be it. I'd appreciate that nobody wastes my time by either replying to me, or PM-ing me links to inside this thread. I'll be doing my best to ignore it as it's fruitless. |
|
|
|
skip
Anyway, I still believe that voting will create a fair outcome. There are thousands of people on this forum, how many people do you think are Yahoo's friends  Apart from him being respected by many people here, I don't think he has many friends. Therefore, theoretically, the voting rate is still fairly fair Voting with random users is useless. Hundreds were being paid from the campaign, thus are direct benefactors and would vote for him. The voting that I was referring to is a vote of consensus between DT1 members, and even there it would be very difficult to win such a vote. It does no longer matter. We have looked the other way, and will do nothing. That was the indirect consensus that was reached. @Lauda @nullius
The campaign is over.. It's been shut down..
All of this fuss has been a fair warning to not advertise scams or facilitate the advertisement of scams..
I think it should be let go for now, with no tags, but not next time..
I'm fine with that as an ending resolution, but you and I both know that there's no "not next time" but "it depends who manages and is recruited in the next one". The same as it was with this one. I don't see much support for a "not next time". Was the money worth it to dishonor yourself so?
The end. |
|
|
|
I don't think there is any law of the forum or DTs that allows such a universally punishable act here,
What I am advocating for has always been a standard practice in DT. Just because people choose to look the other way at past ratings that confirm this, and look the other way because it is Yahoo, is not my problem. so if you [Lauda] don't want that 'next time' to happen and if it happens, will tag even the campaign manager with all the involved users - why don't you open a poll for DTs to support you on that law which you are trying to enforce here right now?
I've thought about that before, and it's a very naive proposal when you think about it. Do you really think that people who are financially motivated to vote against my "proposal" are going to vote for it even if it is just? Do you think that Yahoo's friends will vote for my proposal even if it is just? Give me a break. This is one of the fundamental flaws in democracy, which this system most closely now resembles to. |
|
|
|
|
I'll be rewriting my feedback on OP in the short future to clarify that it's not related to trolling, because it isn't, and never was, and it seems that a lot of people are confused by it. Dishonesty and manipulative behavior (both or which are per definition a user's actions, not a user's opinions) are more than appropriate for negative ratings on DT1 and DT2.
Thank you for the discussion.
|
|
|
|
I notice you've removed your flag against me claiming that I'm high-risk to trade with; Lauda alleged the following, but later withdrew it: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with dragonvslinux is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. However you've left the negative feedback with the same reference, specifically claiming; "You think that trading with this person is high-risk" I therefore recommend you return the flag (if this is what you still believe) to avoid inconsistencies with your claims. Unless you are claiming that trading with me is high-risk, but users are not at risk of losing their money? This doesn't make much sense in opinion, it seems more likely you removed it due to lack of support, which isn't a good reason to be honest. I will not be doing so. The requirements for a flag are a subset of the requirements for a negative rating, i.e. are much stricter. That was the whole intent behind the introduction of the flag-system. Therefore, no contradiction. If you want to argue your case individually, then this thread is not where I would be willing to do so. If each person tried this, then this thread will turn into rubbish which I don't want. You can pick PM, your own thread, or something else.
Please keep in mind that I'm evidently overloaded with the grave injustice being done on the forum in 2020 and your position in the queue would be between 5 - 10 (estimate based on unanswered posts, threads, and PMs, but primarily PMs). Certain individuals, who I have repeatedly asked to wait, are also impatiently PM-ing me in very short time periods (anything under 1 month when I ask for time which I only do when I really need to, is very short). They are making this much worse. I'm sorry for this, but there's nothing I can do about it.. |
|
|
|
It's been 4+ months since the referenced events, what's the rush to tag him now and not wait until you're ready to un-withhold the knowledge?
Sorry, am getting lost. I wasn't aware of this evidence nor this user I think. Many post updates, please update only to latest.
Also, you did not complain this much about any unstated evidence on PN7 = QS. This is a double-standard.
|
|
|
|
Wrong. My rating on Kalemder is more than accurate, and it's further extended by things that you are unfamiliar with. DYOR before claiming my ratings are invalid.
How can he DYOR... DHOR if the things he's unfamiliar with are not present in your feedback or in the reference post? Either put it out there or hold the red paint until the "investigation" is complete. See my update, which was just shortly before you responded. Also, you did not complain this much about any unstated evidence on PN7 = QS. This is a double-standard. (deceptive behavior is appropriate reasoning),
Also, DYOR =/= following my reference. you're essentially arguing from authority, say
Statistical evidence of success (and/or withholding knowledge) =/= arguing from authority. It's again one of those times, one we had last month. The rating on Kalemder will stand.
Good example @OP: PHI1618. See here why I tagged him: ( Reference). This is how I tagged him: Abusing/farming/circle-jerking merit; possibly even selling. Avoid like the plague.
According to the last update on Loyce's website, there's this: Seriously? Those arguing against it: Find a single, objectively non-deceptive, and objectively non-malicious reason for this and I will reconsider my tag (even though this is a single example of many).
Many post updates, please update only to latest. |
|
|
|
Now, here is layer 3 scammers... Bottom of the pyramid. Trust abusers, criminal lawyers. People who game the trust system. (Are you starting to see pictures or should I draw one?) These people, enable the upper layer of scammers and their trust lists do matter. The upper layer of scammers take their power from users that belong to this layer. [Layer 3, Deep layer]
Criminal lawyers are bad? You must not believe in due process or basic fairness. Without criminal lawyers, you won’t really know who is actually guilty and it will lessen the effect of being labeled as guilty because others will question if anyone is truly guilty when there is no due process. Criminal lawyers are good as long as they work as intended. I think he may be referring to high-IQ individuals who are criminals may become lawyers (and other entities e.g. bankers - which would be the low level layer enabling the higher level's). This part of nulliuses post: Many high-IQ people are dishonest, criminal-minded scum. They usually become politicians, lawyers, bankers, brainwallet advocates, Bcashers...
it looks like nullius got kicked off DT2, but Kalemder 's account still has one seemingly undeserved DT tag.
Wrong. My rating on Kalemder is more than accurate ( deceptive behavior is appropriate reasoning), and it's further extended by things that you are unfamiliar with. DYOR before claiming my ratings are invalid. |
|
|
|
Yobit being a scam is no longer an opinion, it wasn't an opinion for a very long time. It's a been a fact[1] for a long time derived from the definition of the word and their continual actions. Very bad example by Tecshare and now by you. Some other entity could have been used as an example of a "scam" that is a scam by opinion.
[1] Empirical proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168200.0. This still doesn't change the fact you are advocating for tagging people for guilt via association. This is not a strategy that can be universally applied and will by definition result in arbitrary and selective enforcement. Furthermore it does nothing to stop the actual perpetrator and will create massive amounts of conflict as well as open wide the doors for abusing the trust system for ulterior motives. All they have to do is claim what is in their sig is a scam, and boom, excuse for punishing people arbitrarily. This strategy achieves nothing and creates MANY negative side effects. Irrelevant, wasn't responding to that. Read: @Lauda @nullius
The campaign is over.. It's been shut down..
All of this fuss has been a fair warning to not advertise scams or facilitate the advertisement of scams..
I think it should be let go for now, with no tags, but not next time..
I'm fine with that as an ending resolution, but you and I both know that there's no "not next time" but "it depends who manages and is recruited in the next one". The same as it was with this one. I don't see much support for a "not next time". Was the money worth it to dishonor yourself so?
|
|
|
|
I'll take this opportunity to use the words of one of my most vociferous critics to help illustrate my point: He makes a very good point that strikes at the heart of this issue. The conclusion that Yobit is a scam is an OPINION. There may be supporting evidence, but that is besides the point. You and others have opened the door to justifying for tagging users who support projects which in the taggers OPINION is a scam. This is the can of worms you people open up with these kinds of frivolous and overbearing tags. Even if it is a proven fact, you are still acting on guilt via association, which is the bread and butter of any kangaroo justice system.
This is why myself and others have been arguing against tagging users for their signatures very fervently, because there is NO WAY to universally and reliably enforce this rule, meaning it is GUARANTEED to be enforced arbitrarily. At the end of the day, what does any of this excessive tagging behavior accomplish? Absolutely nothing, except for destroying users reputations, and causing tons and tons of disputes of course. Yobit lives on, your abuse of the user base doesn't change that.
Yobit being a scam is no longer an opinion, it wasn't an opinion for a very long time. It's a been a fact[1] for a long time derived from the definition of the word and their continual actions. Very bad example by Tecshare and now by you. Some other entity could have been used as an example of a "scam" that is a scam by opinion.
[1] Empirical proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168200.0. |
|
|
|
I believe the guidelines are for trustworthy people and DefaultTrust. There were never any guidelines for non-DT members (for the old or the new system), you could send as many frivolous ratings as you've wanted.
Ok, then we disagree what is valid for DefaultTrust or not. I don't think red trust for trolling etc is a good use of DefaultTrust privileges. Nowhere did I say, nor mean to imply the above.. I used this as an example within a set of actions by individuals, with whom others may not want to trade because of said actions. Reasons why I or many rational persons wouldn't trade with someone: - Trolling - I wouldn't attempt to trade with a known troll due to non-trade related deceptive behavior.
- Dishonesty/hypocrisy - Who would?
- General deceptive behavior.
- Many, many more..
According to his own statement, all of these are valid use of the ratings. I disagree that red trust for trolling (from the list above) is a valid use of DT privileges. Neutral - possibly, depending on circumstances. If that's not what you meant then I don't know why you're bringing it up. Theymos definitely didn't mean that red trust for trolling is a valid use as shown by his other quote posted earlier by o_e_l_e_o. Reasons why I or many rational persons wouldn't trade with someone:
As you were solely concerned about trade and not trust, I've listed reasons why I (and others) may not want to trade with someone. Following from this, they are potential bases for ratings, it doesn't mean that I argue that every single one of those is appropriate for DT members. I don't even really agree with the first point (although may have left some in the past), I was just trying to be fair by including it.. a singular rating which you disagree
Definitely not a single rating in nullius' case. At least one other was already mentioned in this thread, and that's just for the last two days. There are 3 or 4 other reds that I consider inappropriate so for me that makes the signal-to-noise ratio bad enough for an exclusion. Fair point, and thus I withdraw that in relation to nullius and you. However, I'm also arguing that it shouldn't be done for singular cases in general, otherwise it will undermine stability and strengthen nepotism and chaos ("comply with every single order or you're out" kind of thing). |
|
|
|
@Lauda @nullius
The campaign is over.. It's been shut down..
All of this fuss has been a fair warning to not advertise scams or facilitate the advertisement of scams..
I think it should be let go for now, with no tags, but not next time..
I'm fine with that as an ending resolution, but you and I both know that there's no "not next time" but "it depends who manages and is recruited in the next one". The same as it was with this one. I don't see much support for a "not next time". Re: yahoo62278 and Yobit
Today at 08:07:29 AM
Merited by suchmoon (7), cabalism13 (5), Foxpup (4), KnightElite (3), examplens (1), TimeTeller (1), Bezobraznike (1), DireWolfM14 (1)
This is also good evidence for what I'm talking about. Agree with a post or the poster? Merits! Don't agree, no merits. Not all users on this list are guilty of this of course, but this just gives mounting evidence that both systems got heavily politicized in recent time. However, you're well familiar with this issue as your posts are lacking merits too.. Was the money worth it to dishonor yourself so?
|
|
|
|
The odds aren't good for you here nullius..
You sure you want to go down in flames over your disagreement with TECSHARE's trust list?
If a single rating some people disagree with makes someone else "go down in flames", then we can append another ugly-truth to the list of topics that should be visited. I'm trying to find the point in time where this system quickly spiraled into this direction, as this was not the case before. Did I mention the politicization of merit and its close relation to this issue yet?
Again, please note - not arguing anything on the specific rating that was sent. |
|
|
|
I believe the guidelines are for trustworthy people and DefaultTrust. There were never any guidelines for non-DT members (for the old or the new system), you could send as many frivolous ratings as you've wanted.
Ok, then we disagree what is valid for DefaultTrust or not. I don't think red trust for trolling etc is a good use of DefaultTrust privileges. Nowhere did I say, nor mean to imply the above.. I used this as an example within a set of actions by individuals, with whom others may not want to trade because of said actions. If that is your opinion, it is certainly a respectable opinion—and I never thought otherwise, as to suchmoon’s seemingly quite similar opinion. But the question is, do you think that reasonable disagreement with that opinion is grounds for ~exclusion?
This is also another factor that is completely being ignored and hasn't been addressed in the public as it is yet another ugly truth of the system. "Agree to disagree" card gets played, but since you're outranked and outnumbered we will kick you out because why not? Complete lapses in judgement (see Yahoo & Yobit situation, being the most recent) are not sufficient for an exclusion, but a singular rating which you disagree with is? Please. ..but the system has spiraled from decentralization into a weird form of nepotism-based democracy with selective judicial enforcement)..
|
|
|
|
Reasons why I or many rational persons wouldn't trade with someone: - Trolling - I wouldn't attempt to trade with a known troll due to non-trade related deceptive behavior.
- Dishonesty/hypocrisy - Who would?
- General deceptive behavior.
- Many, many more..
According to his own statement, all of these are valid use of the ratings. I think there is a difference between a "valid" use, and use appropriate for DefaultTrust. I believe the guidelines are for trustworthy people and DefaultTrust. There were never any guidelines for non-DT members (for the old or the new system), you could send as many frivolous ratings as you've wanted. I'm pretty sure you can red-trust someone for disliking lemons and stretch the interpretation of "high risk" to mean that dislike of a fruit makes trading said fruits with the person "high-risk". I would argue that this kind of rating is useless and possibly harmful for DefaultTrust, or at least for my own trust network, which is what really matters.
I'd agree with you, but labeling deceptive behavior which is inherently a risk-factor when considering trading with someone and the dislike of lemons which is in no way related to trade (unless, you want to maybe sell lemons?) is really not a fair way to argue against this. I think these overstretched interpretations of the effects of hypocrisy, trolling, etc on trading are not useful for my trust network and amount to using trust ratings against opinions. Others may think differently, the balance will determine how DT looks like,
1) I've given you examples proving that the correct use is as claimed in the previous DT system. 2) I've given you theymoses own quote which proves that the trust system requirements were weakened. 3) The logical conclusion following out of 1) and 2) is that any previous rating that was valid use, is now definitely valid use. Still, you just shut it down. What options are left? I know of only of two, one of which you mentioned above. See below for elaboration.
You know very well as I do that nobody's complaining, no matter how right/just/objectively correct their view is (and I'm not claiming any of one of these in my claim in this post), will be a waste of time when it's up against groups of DT1 members or friends in DT1 members (strongly arguing the opposite view, even if incorrect), etc. Also, we both know that any exclusions and inclusions are now heavily politicized (this was was not the case before). This is why I don't want to go around PM-ing DT1 members, hoping that they'll do the right thing as I'll be labeled as some shady/evil wrongdoer going behind the backs of others (not by you - this is just the current state of affairs here). There, I'm stating this ugly truth publicly. The only remaining option is to ask an administrative authority, i.e. theymos to provide an elaborative opinion on his own guidelines. The same method as used above can be used to reject his opinion if it doesn't agree with your view. The former option is entirely useless, and shouldn't even be considered as it will backfire on the entity that tries it (yes, I've said it - this was always the case with most people sadly, back in my DT2 (old), DT1 (new) and new DT2 (new)).
I will be choosing the latter option which is not my preference due to its centralizing nature (but the system has spiraled from decentralization into a weird form of nepotism-based democracy with selective judicial enforcement). He may answer, he may not. He may agree with me, he may not. It's evident that no evidence I bring forth or logically construed argument I use will change your mind on this. Therefore, I rest my case. Sorry for wasting everyone's time reading this whole exchange. and I know better than trying to change your mind so this is a good opportunity to agree to disagree.
I've changed or am considering changing my mind on several things, including Quickseller, eddie, and so forth so I don't think this opinion of me is really fair. |
|
|
|
I don't understand this. The introduction of the flag system and change of the trust system as a direct effect had a weakening on the criteria for negative ratings. How can something that was valid before not be valid now in this context I don't believe the rating against TECSHARE would have been valid in the old system. The criteria used to be something like "this person has scammed or you think will scam" which is not something that a reasonable person could say about TECSHARE or Kalemder based on those two ratings and references from today/yesterday. Worthy of exclusion perhaps, maybe even a neutral rating if you feel very strongly about it. Not worthy of a DT red trust IMO. - negative for slander: macheng 2013-10-01 Reference Slander on the regard of chip refunds - due to the fragmented nature of refunds ample time is required to verify the refund list. The refund was done within 1 week of me getting the list and the BTC from Avalon, and note that I had to go through about 4 group buy's worth of users in that period.
theymos - negative for censorship: QuintoBTC 2014-07-21 Censors reasonable criticism in his self-moderated topics.
theymos - negative for "giving everyone bad feedback": btcman 2013-06-23 Gives everyone bad feedback.
BadBear - negative for plagiarism and referral links: BitshireHashaway 2014-01-20 Reference Spams the forum with plagiarized guides, then adds donation requests/referral links
Albeit early ratings, but they haven't been much active as the 2nd half of the system was approaching (at least when it comes to giving out ratings, and BadBear has left completely). These were Gen1, and there are many more examples (probably TC, QS, and more) that can be cherry-picked if you look at sent ratings. Nothing to do with having to trade with somebody, as it has never been a requirement. Gen2 (Blazed, Lutpin, Mexxer, and more):
mexxer-2 - Negative for being shady: codishmumu 2015-09-29 Reference I believe this person is reall shady, check reference thread
mexxer-2 - Negative for promoting an "obvious scam". DIGITAL GOODS 2015-10-27 Reference Promoting a obvious scam , which he calls "renting hash power in scrypt" , scrypt? Really?
mexxer-2 - Negative for running a complicated ponzi (Yobit's x10 is just a complicated ponzi, no more no less): Bitspread.in 2016-01-17 Reference Running a complicated ponzi
mexxer-2 - Negative for promoting a ponzi: stefin 2016-01-25 Reference Promoting a ponzi scam
bitsmit 2016-01-25 Reference
Lutpin - Negative for dishonest behavior (see trolling): Fwdxlsh 2015-11-24 Reference trolling, unfriendly, offensive.
Maybe you think this is funny, but after all, its just annoying.
Lutpin - Negative for a lie (albeit casino itself may have been shady - though out of scope of rating): PassiveDice 2015-11-29 "Because it is a standalone bot It has no house edge like the dice sites automated bots."
Barehand lie, cant believe they got any bots at all.
Lutpin - Negative for knowingly promoting a ponzi scheme in their signature: Rago 2015-12-21 Reference Knowingly promotes a ponzi scheme as part of a signature campaign.
Lutpin - Negative for promoting something that is knowingly mallicious(!): Velkro 2016-05-20 Reference Promoting bitcoinvanitygen.com, a site that is insecurly creating vanity addresses (no split-creation) and suspected to steal coins stored in vanity addresses created by them.
There were many many of these ratings in Gen2 (especially pertaining to advertising a ponzi) as well as in Gen3 (which includes The Pharmacist, myself and others). For context, I consider Gen4 the reign of flags/new trust system rotation). You could say things like "then we should exclude them", but that would completely avoid and shut down any discussion. These people were always included by a majority of the vital members, meaning that at least most of their ratings had to have been appropriate in the former, stricter system. If they were appropriate then, then they can't be inappropriate now (requirements wise). Please note that I'm not arguing pro-tagging for any individual reason listed in the examples. They are just that, examples, which serve as evidence for the claim that the introduction of the flag system/change in the trust-system had to have had a weakening effect on the requirements and not the other way around. I have spent time looking for some examples rather than telling you "Hey look at all the years until now" in hope that you see how things really always were. Hope this helps.
Appendix, quote from theymos:I think that several of the problems with Trust were because three different goals were being jammed into one system:
1. Getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness in one convenient location, sort of like reviews on sites like EBay.
2. Warning newbies/guests who don't know how to research properly about high-risk people.
3. Deterring scams by creating a cost to scamming (ie. you'll "lose" a veteran account).
To improve this, I've split up these use-cases:
Use-case #1 is the old trust system, but I made the descriptions on the rating types a bit more general and removed the concept of a trust score. The numbers are now "distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters". You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.
Use-cases 2 and 3 will be handled by a new system of flags. You can create a flag using a link on a person's trust page.
Reasons why I or many rational persons wouldn't trade with someone: - Trolling - I wouldn't attempt to trade with a known troll due to non-trade related deceptive behavior.
- Dishonesty/hypocrisy - Who would?
- General deceptive behavior.
- Many, many more..
According to his own statement, all of these are valid use of the ratings.
I will try to add links to everything, it's really difficult with all the research required. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
